In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:00:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Someone sent me a spam-like ad for Executive Engineering Atomic >Batteries, linking to this web page: > >http://www.exec-eng.com/eenag/battery-technology.htm
From the White paper published on their web site (http://www.exec-eng.com/eenag/redacted-white-paper.htm):- " Previous attempts have been attempted for the use of nuclear power. Beginning with Dr. Paul Brown back in the 1980's, sporadic attempts have been made to create isotopic nuclear batteries. Other than RTG, all such attempts have failed. Dr. Brown had innovative ideas but, ultimately, he could not make it work. Although his device represented a new concept in power, his experiments, nevertheless, failed primarily due to an unacceptably high rate of mean time between failures." Note that they do NOT say that Paul Brown's batteries failed because his theory was wrong. They just say that his engineering was poor. IMO this fact combined with the word "accelerated" in "NAG", implies that they have continued Paul's work, and perhaps improved on it. However the statement:- "In fact, most such isotopes have at least 10 half-lives. Assuming an active life span of three to 100 years, most isotopes would have at least 10 half lives worth of useful energy discharge. This gives them trade-in value as well as their energy value." This is obviously nonsense. If the decay is accelerated as they claim, then the lifetime of the energy source will depend on the power output. IOW the isotope starts off with a fixed amount of energy, and how long it lasts depends on fast one uses it. They also say:- "Nuclear isotopic power will bring to fruition such things as particle beam weapons, ion-powered space planes, nuclear powered jet aircraft, high-powered laser canons, nuclear powered tanks, nuclear powered naval ships and, even, cryogenic coolers. " It would appear that they haven't noticed that the US Navy already has quite a few nuclear powered vessels. :) The statement:- "The NAG is not, in and of itself, a heat-producing device as is a conventional nuclear facility. One gram of Strontium 90 (a potential and likely fuel for the NAG) can produce 1,590 watts of power and .54 watts of heat." reveals an acceleration factor of almost exactly 10000, since 1 gm of Sr-90 naturally produces 0.158 W of power. This makes me wonder if the factor of 10000 is measured, theoretical, or "gee, isn't this a nice round number?". Beta particles produce x-rays through bremsstrahlung. If you accelerate the decay by a factor of 10000, then you also accelerate the x-ray production by that amount, and these x-rays are not that easily stopped. Therefore, I'm a bit dubious about their claim:- "The device is self-contained with little or no X-Rays whether in operation or not in operation. No Beta particles are ever emitted outside the casing of the device." As to patents:- " It should be noted that the NAG device has been patented and the patent number, also, will remain confidential. The Nuclear Accelerated Generator is, in its entirety, 100% the proprietary property of Executive Engineering of Florida." ...is it possible to keep patents (not the patent number) confidential? I thought they were all published, except those deliberately suppressed by the government? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
